[meteorite-list] Meteorite smugglers anger scientists

From: MexicoDoug <MexicoDoug_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:28:46 -0500
Message-ID: <043701c7808f$c2016b20$36cf5ec8_at_0019110394>

Hello Jeff, List,

That does appear to deserve a second serious look for the concerned, and I
assume the Bulletin Supplement isn't included (which basically ignores the
classification work, coordinate recording and compositional publication as
science that counts). Of course these are for classified meteorites and
nothing much can be formally done for those unclassified or questionably
classified where the true problem exists.

Just to clarify this obvious discrepancy, if we subtract Alan Hills 84001
can you say what the Antarctic totals recounted come out to?

Thanks for stepping up and your viewpoint is respected and welcomed.
Best Health and Kind Wishes,
Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Grossman" <jgrossman at usgs.gov>
To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Meteorite smugglers anger scientists


> At 06:29 PM 4/16/2007, ensoramanda wrote:
> >So if science is "losing important material for study" to
> >dealers/hunters/collectors of NWA's, why dont we hear much about all
> >the amazing research that must be coming out of the thousands of
> >meteorites from Antarctica? !!! Science has exclusive use of these
> >but I never seem to hear much exciting news about them...or am I
> >just not looking in the right place?
> >
> >Graham Ensor, nr Barwell UK
>
> You are looking in the wrong place. Far more important research
> results have been coming from the Antarctic meteorites than from hot
> desert meteorites.
>
> I did a quick count of meteorites used in studies published in both
> major meteoritics and cosmochemistry journals in 2006. Each tally
> means one meteorite mentioned in one paper (if the same meteorite is
> mentioned in 6 papers, it counts for 6). Here are the results:
>
> Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta:
>
> Saharan+Oman meteorites: 22
> Antarctic meteorites: 62
> Non-Antarctic/non-saharan meteorites: 109 plus one paper with 50.
>
> In Meteoritics and Planetary Science:
>
> Saharan+Oman meteorites: 10
> Antarctic meteorites: 80 plus one paper with many.
> Non-Antarctic/non-saharan meteorites: 106 plus one paper with many.
>
> The real question is, why are hot desert meteorites so miserably
> UNDER-represented in the literature. I think there are several
> answers, and there are probably many more:
>
> 1) Falls are often the most valuable samples for research due to lack
> of weathering.
> 2) Research specimens of hot desert meteorites tend to be very small.
> 3) Hot desert meteorite are not well distributed in the research
> collections of the world (especially in the US), and are much harder
> for scientists to obtain.
> 4) All of the major Antarctic collections are well curated and have
> formal procedures in place for obtaining samples.
> 5) Hot desert meteorite collections are useless for the study of irons.
>
> Jeff
>
Received on Mon 16 Apr 2007 09:28:46 PM PDT